Mr. Patrick Kent:

I thank the Chairman. The ICSA welcomes this opportunity to appear before the committee. Farm safety is very important and we feel immense sympathy for the families of those who have died as a result of farm related accidents. We must avoid knee-jerk responses to what was an exceptionally bad year for fatalities. While fatalities grab the headlines, we must look at the wider context of overall health, safety and well-being. Farmers are suffering and even dying from stress-related illnesses, but this receives much less attention. We suggest much of the commentary on farm fatalities is based on relatively narrow and inappropriate levels of statistical information, and inappropriate comparisons have been made. Is it appropriate to compare agricultural figures with figures from other sectors, such as manufacturing, retail, professional or construction? It is comparing apples with oranges. The only worthwhile and meaningful assessment of where we are is to compare farms in other EU member states. Irish farm fatality rates are neither better nor worse than comparable EU averages. An example of the difficulties associated with placing too much emphasis on fatality figures is that while the 2014 figure of 30 fatalities was the highest in more than 20 years, the figure for the previous year was well below average at 16. Fatality numbers decreased in each consecutive year from 2010 to 2013.

One exceptionally bad year does not confirm a trend. It is fair to say there are unique circumstances around farming that do not prevail in other sectors, including the unpredictable nature of livestock challenges posed by working in solitary conditions; the older age profile of the agricultural workforce and low farm incomes linked with price take. I would like to speak briefly about each of these sectors.

On the unpredictable nature of livestock challenges, a typical example would be the challenge of working with freshly calved animals which are unpredictable and frequently dangerous. Top-class animal handling facilities such as calving gates help, but they have limitations. The farmer must get the animal into the facility which may be a danger point. Following calving, the animal must be released to become familiar with the newborn calf. If the calf does not suck, the farmer must intervene or the animal will die. It is easy to say the farmer should put his or her own life before that of the animal, but the reality is that if he or she does not intervene on a regular basis, the result will be the death of a number of animals. The risk is multiplied at peak calving time when several calvings might happen within 24 hours, leading to exhaustion. For many farmers, in the peak calving season they are required to work 18-hour shifts. The economics of farming do not allow for shift work such as pertains in factories where there might be three-cycle shifts.

Aside from calving, there is always a risk attached to animals which, in some cases, is next to impossible to foresee. In 2014 a farmer was killed when an animal, having been startled by cats, stampeded across a field and trampled her and another woman. The increase in suckler cow numbers, combined with part-time farming, is creating potential risk as suckler cow derived animals are more unpredictable. Part-time farming increases further the incidents of dangerous cattle that are not used to human interaction.

On solitary working conditions, unlike other workplaces, the vast majority of farming activity is carried out by single operators who are often under pressure from weather conditions or in having to deal with emergencies such as cows calving. The problem is made worse by the fact that many farmers, owing to income issues, have to work off-farm and squeeze in their farming work during the evening or at weekends.

One approach to farm safety is to enforce industrial or construction site standards on farm workplaces. However, it is necessary to consider that work practice norms in factories, offices or construction sites are generally influenced and facilitated by the number of people present at work. The advantage of specialisation and having well defined job roles allow an approach that is not easily replicated on a farm. There is little doubt that a huge amount of the work carried out on a farm by a solitary individual would not be permitted in an industrial setting or on a building site. The nature of farming requires each farmer to be a jack of all trades. The relentless squeezing of farm incomes during the years means that there are fewer opportunities to hire outside help. Where a machine breaks down and the weather is due to break, there is immense pressure to get things fixed instantly. If a call out repair service is available, it is typically unavailable when a farmer wants to make hay. As dealing with all breakdowns is urgent, farmers tend to undertake the job themselves.

Another unique factor is the age profile of farmers. Of the 30 fatalities in 2014, six involved individuals in their 70s, while four were in their 80s. Some 50% of fatal accidents in 2011 involved farmers over the age of 65 years. In excess of 40% of fatalities in five of the past ten years involved farmers aged over 65 years. In other sectors retirement policy would preclude people of this age from continuing to work. The implication might be that older farmers should retire, but in the view of the ICSA this would be utterly wrong. Older farmers are obviously more vulnerable to livestock accidents, but this is counterbalanced by the reality that farmers who continue to be active in their later years derive benefit from it in terms of physical fitness and mental well-being. Unquestionably, the ideal model is where an older farmer retains an involvement in farming alongside a young farmer, either a successor or a farm partner. In many situations poor income prospects in farming mean that there is no successor on the farm. Better facilities for handling animals are a necessity, but the reality may be that the most vulnerable older farmers cannot afford them. The introduction of tax incentives to encourage long-term leasing and the emerging focus on farm partnerships may lead to some older farmers moving away from farming on their own into old age. These initiatives are welcome.

Low farm incomes is a huge issue. Those who expect farmers to produce far below the cost of production or have insanely difficult levels of productivity must own up to their responsibilities. We now hear that a single operator can look after more than 100 dairy cows.

We know farmers are price-takers and the returns from cattle farming are not sufficient for state-of-the-art facilities that minimise risk. It is fair enough to say that every power take-off shaft should be replaced or covered. How does a cost of several hundred euro compare with the taking of a life? There is also the need to replace all swinging doors with sliding doors, which could involve a cost of several thousand euro. The oldest tractors should also be upgraded and indoor agitation points should be replaced with outdoor points. Electrical work might also need to be upgraded, and this could lead to many thousands of euro being spent on many farms. This is easy in theory but not if one wishes to put bread on the table and the bank refuses an extension to an overdraft, for example.

We believe the following proposals can make a significant improvement in this respect. The Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association has highlighted the education of children as being vital, and it should be on a curriculum, in combination with road safety, etc. Staying alive is the most important lesson that children can learn. More reflection on low incomes in farming is required by policymakers at an EU and national level, and it is unacceptable that the EU Commission or the Government would threaten to cut EU supports for safety shortcomings when there are general reductions to farm incomes caused by policy decisions, such as the closure of the Rural Environment Protection Scheme, a reduction in Pillar 1 payments and insufficient action against multinational traders taking more margin from product and making it more difficult for farmers to ensure that all facilities and equipment are top class and up to date. We submit that a cut to supports worsens this problem and extra funding for farm safety grants is instead required, particularly given that the most recent scheme has been oversubscribed. Discussion groups were mentioned by a previous speaker and they are a major help. There is also the matter of ongoing education awareness through farm organisations and Teagasc, the minimising of stress and prioritising mental health issues.

I will conclude with the following thought. The ongoing squeeze on farm margins by processors and retailers, along with increasing stress levels caused by bureaucracy, cannot escape its share of blame. The message to farmers is to "get busy" producing more but there comes a point when something must give.